Grand County commissioners, planners workshop MFR‑45 zoning to target low‑income housing

Grand County commissioners and the Planning Commission held a joint workshop Oct. 13 to discuss a draft MFR‑45 multifamily zoning district intended to make certain sites in the county eligible for federal Low‑Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) investments and allocations through the Utah Housing Corporation.

The discussion focused on how dense developments should be, how long deed restrictions on affordability should run, whether site plans should be approved before or after a rezone, and where the county should allow the new district. Commissioners and staff also discussed timelines developers would face to secure credits and complete projects.

County Commissioner Brian Martinez and Commissioner Winfield, joined by Planning Commission members and county staff, said the proposal aims to spur construction of very‑low‑ and low‑income housing by offering higher allowable units per acre than existing districts. Staff described the MFR‑45 draft language as requiring a development agreement and deed restriction as part of any MFR‑45 rezone, and the draft currently includes a provision describing affordability restrictions “in perpetuity.”

“We tried to get Steve Waldrop here, but he was unable to make it,” Martinez said, introducing the idea and describing the MFR‑45 draft as a tool to complement LIHTC and the Utah Housing Corporation programs expected in 2025.

Ben, who described experience working on LIHTC projects, said LIHTC allocations are highly competitive and typically involve equity investments from banks that receive tax credits in exchange for investing in a project. He explained that state housing agencies receive a pool of LIHTC credits from the IRS, then award allocations competitively and that awards typically range from small projects of 20 units up to large projects of 200 units.

Commissioners debated whether deed restrictions limiting units to low and very‑low income households should be perpetual or set for a term similar to LIHTC extended‑use periods (commonly 50 years). “I like the idea of having them be restricted in perpetuity,” one commissioner said, while others said the county should ask legal counsel to define what “in perpetuity” would mean for land versus structures and whether it should be tied to the life of a building. Staff and commissioners agreed to seek legal clarification on that point.

Members discussed administrative procedures intended to make proposals sufficiently specific for staff review, including whether a site plan can or should be submitted before a rezone. Staff pointed out the draft includes a requirement that a site plan be submitted and approved within a set time frame after rezone approval (the draft currently contains both 12‑ and 24‑month references and an additional suggested requirement that construction begin within one year and be completed within two). Commissioners asked staff to reconcile inconsistent timing language and recommended a uniform and reasonable deadline — 18 months was suggested as a compromise.

Density and infrastructure capacity were central concerns. Commissioners noted existing high‑density approvals in county history (for example, projects at 35 units per acre) and said that although MFR‑45 would allow up to 45 units per acre on paper, actual projects commonly build at lower densities once parking, grading and utility demands are addressed. Staff emphasized that utilities and roads must be planned to accommodate the maximum allowed density.

Location was the most repeated topic. Commissioners identified the county’s adopted future land‑use plan’s higher‑density nodes — the two neighborhood centers at Mill Creek and Murphy Lane, Resource Boulevard, Highway 191 and Spanish Trail — as the logical areas to prioritize. Some commissioners advocated for centering MFR‑45 applicability near existing highway commercial corridors and the Resource Boulevard/regional center area to take advantage of existing infrastructure; others urged consistency with the future land‑use map and recommended that any mapping and parcel selection be done with GIS support and clear applicability criteria.

Commissioners agreed on several next steps: ask county legal to clarify the meaning and mechanics of “in perpetuity” deed restrictions; have staff reconcile the draft’s inconsistent site‑plan/timeline references (12 vs. 24 months) and consider a single reasonable deadline (18 months was discussed); and ask staff to draft clearer applicability language and to generate parcel maps showing candidate sites based on mutually agreed criteria (for example proximity to highway commercial, sewer/water availability, and future land‑use designations).

The workshop emphasized the difference between zoning policy and project specifics: the body repeatedly noted zone changes are invasive but can be applied to specific parcels where suitability, infrastructure and public benefit align. Commissioners also stressed they did not yet have a pending developer application tied to the proposed zone, though several developers and projects have expressed interest in the past.

Staff and commissioners identified follow‑up tasks rather than taking formal action at the workshop. The commission recessed the joint workshop and returned to the regular agenda.

The discussion will continue at subsequent Planning Commission and County Commission meetings as staff refines the MFR‑45 draft and provides maps and legal analysis for commissioners to review.